[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 29498-29505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3073, FATHERS COUNT ACT OF 1999

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 367

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3073) to amend part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act to provide for grants for projects 
     designed to promote responsible fatherhood, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of 
     rule XVIII, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with our 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 367 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999.
  The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate. One hour will be 
managed by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and 30 minutes will be managed by the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce. Both of these committees have jurisdiction over portions 
of the bill and the compilation of their work is embodied in a 
substitute amendment which will be made in order as base text for the 
purpose of further amendment.
  The rule designates which amendments may be offered which are printed 
in the Committee on Rules report. Out of the nine amendments filed with 
the Committee on Rules, six are made in order under the rule and five 
of those six are Democrat amendments.
  In addition to giving my Democratic colleagues five out of six 
amendments, the rule offers the minority a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions. So I think it is accurate to say that this bill 
treats the minority very fairly, especially considering that both 
committees of jurisdiction reported their versions of the bill by voice 
vote, suggesting very little controversy.
  Mr. Speaker, the Fathers Count Act builds on the welfare reforms that 
Congress successfully enacted in 1996. Those reforms were based on the 
principles of personal responsibility, accountability, as well as the 
value of work. And with this foundation, welfare reform has been a 
great success. Since 1996, we have seen our welfare rolls shrink by 40 
percent. We now have the lowest number of families on welfare since 
1970.
  But our work is far from done. There are still families struggling to 
make ends meet and many of them are single-parent households and more 
often than not, the lone struggling parent is the mother.
  For those of us who have raised children with the help and support of 
a spouse, it is hard to fathom the energy, patience, and stamina 
required to face such a task alone. And for those of us who were 
fortunate enough to be raised by two parents, it is hard to imagine the 
void of a fatherless youth or how our personalities and life experience 
would have been altered had our fathers not been there to guide us.
  But as we know, this is the reality for many low-income American 
families that have their financial challenges compounded by the absence 
of a father and a husband. The fact is that kids in two-parent homes 
are generally better off than those raised in single-parent homes. Kids 
who have only one parent to rely on have a harder time in school, a 
lower rate of graduation, a greater propensity toward crime, an 
increased likelihood of becoming a single parent themselves, and a 
higher chance of ending up on welfare.
  The Fathers Count Act recognizes these hardships as well as the 
significant role that fathers play in family life. The bill seeks to 
build stronger families and better men by promoting marriage and 
encouraging the payment of child support and boosting fathers' income 
so that they can better provide for their children.
  Specifically, the Fathers Count Act provides $140 million for 
demonstration

[[Page 29499]]

projects that are designed to promote marriage, encourage good 
parenting, and increase employment for fathers of poor children.
  Congress and the President will appoint two 10-member review panels 
who will determine which programs receive Federal funds. Preference 
will be given to those programs that encourage the payment of child 
support, work with State and local welfare and child support agencies, 
and have a clear plan for recruiting fathers. The number of programs 
selected and the amount of funding they receive is not dictated by the 
bill. Members of the selection panels will have the flexibility to make 
these decisions based on the quality and number of programs that apply.
  The bill also encourages local efforts to help fathers by requiring 
that 75 percent of the funding be given to nongovernmental community-
based organizations.
  The Fathers Count Act also seeks a balance in terms of the size of 
programs and their geographic locations. The fact is that we are not 
sure what the best way is to get fathers back into the picture and 
engage in their children's upbringing, but we think some community-
based organizations might have some good ideas and would meet the 
unique needs of the fathers in their own cities and towns.
  The Fathers Count Act is designed to try to tap into these 
communities, try some new things, and then scientifically evaluate the 
results so that good programs can be duplicated.
  Despite its name, the Fathers Count Act is not just about fathers. It 
also improves our welfare system by expanding eligibility for welfare-
to-work programs. The program was designed to help the hardest-to-
employ, long-term welfare recipients. But in an attempt to ensure that 
the most needy individuals are served by the program, Congress made the 
criteria a bit too stringent and the States are not able to find enough 
eligible people to fulfill the program's purpose. So this bill adds 
some needed flexibility to the program by requiring recipients to meet 
one of seven defined characteristics rather than two out of three. As a 
result, we should see many more families move successfully from welfare 
dependency to self-sufficiency.
  Further, the bill gives relief to States who are making a good-faith 
effort to meet Federal child support enforcement requirements, but 
which are facing devastating penalties for missing an October 1 
deadline.
  These penalties were established with the thought that if States 
missed the deadline by which they were to have a child support State 
distribution unit set up and running, they would be doing so in willful 
disobedience of Federal law. In fact, there are eight States that have 
been working very hard to comply, but have hit some bumps in the road 
which have slowed them down a bit.
  The alternative penalties provided in this bill provide incentives 
and encouragement to meet child support enforcement goals without 
crippling these States' welfare systems in the process.
  Finally, I am pleased that the Fathers Count Act includes important 
funding for the training of court personnel who are at the center of 
our child protection system.
  As we implement new laws that seek to move more children out of the 
foster care system into safe, loving and permanent homes, we must 
ensure that our courts have the resources necessary to make the very 
best decisions for our children.
  Mr. Speaker, all said, the Fathers Count Act takes a number of 
important steps forward in our Nation's efforts to redefine welfare and 
make it work for families. But most importantly, this legislation 
values responsible parenting, in this case, fatherhood, by giving the 
support and encouragement for fathers to be there for their children, 
physically, emotionally, and financially.
  I hope my colleagues will support this rule, participate in today's 
debate, and take another step forward in making our welfare system work 
for all families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Fathers Count 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce), my dear friend and colleague, for yielding me this time; and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule governing the debate of H.R. 3073, the Fathers 
Count Act, makes in order a number of amendments which greatly improve 
the underlying bill. This rule should have been an open rule. The 
legislation should be fully debated without unnecessary restrictions. 
We were unable to achieve that, but a number of important amendments 
are made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, let us all agree that fathers count. Fathers have a 
major impact on every child's life either through their presence or by 
their absence.
  We can go through the voluminous research or rely on our common sense 
to understand the important role that fathers play in the lives of the 
children whom they helped to bring into the world. But fathers must 
also stand up and be counted. Sadly, in our Nation, the majority of 
single-parent families with minor children are maintained by the 
mothers of those children. Too often, single mothers must struggle to 
balance the demands of a household, raising children, and holding a 
job. If they are not receiving child support payments from the fathers 
of their children, this task can be all but impossible.
  In my own home district of Monroe County, New York, alone, only $35 
million of the $46 million due to local children was collected, meaning 
that one quarter of the child support went unpaid.
  Mr. Speaker, it has taken heroic efforts just to get where we are 
today regarding the public perception of child support payments. We 
have made great strides in educating people that they are not casual 
obligations.
  In seeking to promote marriage, I am concerned about whether or not 
this bill may have an unintended effect of trying to keep together some 
unions which should, in fact, be separated, specifically, those with an 
abusive, physically violent spouse. When as many as one-fourth of the 
women on public assistance are living with violence in their lives, let 
the us not try to force them to remain in a violent marriage.
  Promoting and encouraging fatherhood is a laudable goal. We need to 
focus on men and their roles as fathers. But that cannot happen 
independent of the women who are their partners and who quite clearly 
have a very important part in creating children and the family which 
results.
  There will be an amendment offered which will help clarify this point 
and which emphasizes the notion that parents count. This amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), also puts proper 
emphasis on providing resources to organizations dealing with domestic 
violence prevention and intervention.
  Finally, the rule does allow for an amendment by our colleague who is 
perhaps the most consistent and thoughtful voice on the separation of 
church and State, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). The 
separation of church and State is a brilliant and practical gift of our 
Founding Fathers. It is expressly intended to help preserve our 
religious freedoms, not to threaten them. And this notion serves as a 
firewall from government regulations of religious practice.
  Thus, even when it might be more convenient or expeditious to bridge 
this separation, it must be vigilantly maintained. I strongly encourage 
Members to consider the Edwards amendment. It will help us to maintain 
the tradition which has served this country well by clarifying the 
eligibility of faith-based organizations to participate in the programs 
provided under this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was cleared by the Committee on Ways and Means 
on a voice vote and sped down a fast track to consideration here on the 
House Floor, but a hasty process sometimes needs to be slowed down so 
that we can more fully consider how to best make fathers count and how 
to make fathers accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 29500]]


  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any requests for time, 
so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the underlying bill, let me add my 
appreciation, gratitude and congratulations to Chaplain Ford in support 
of the resolution honoring him, for he has given this Nation and this 
Congress a great, great and wonderful service.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and to support the underlying 
bill as well. I am very gratified that the Committee on Rules saw fit 
to acknowledge a number of the amendments that I think will enhance 
this legislation. But I think it is important to start my support 
debate on this bill with a referral to a 13-year-old in Pontiac, 
Michigan, by the name of Nathaniel Abraham. Nathaniel Abraham came from 
a family that I am sure wanted the best for him. Nathaniel Abraham is a 
13-year-old who has been certified as an adult for murder.
  His mother, as the newspapers report, is a hard-working single parent 
with a number of other children who loved all of her children and cared 
for them, but Nathaniel's father was not in the home. When interviewed 
on 60 Minutes about what he thought about that, his response was first, 
yes, he was unhappy and hurt, but that he was angry.
  I think the statistical analysis will point to the fact that children 
who have fathers who are absent from their lives and their homes turn 
out to be dysfunctional adults or youth. It is important to have a bill 
that emphasizes fathers, but emphasizes parents and emphasizes 
families.
  Recent studies show that 59 percent of teenage children born in poor 
families are raised by a single parent with little or no involvement of 
fathers, and 90 percent of teenagers who have children are unmarried, 
and 28 percent of all families are headed by a single parent.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted that this legislation will 
liberalize welfare-to-work provisions which will allow monies to be 
given in a more liberalized manner, and that it will also provide 
monies for children or young people who are coming off foster care, an 
area of interest that I have had for a number of years. I am as well 
pleased that there will be a focus on low-income fathers through 
marriage and job counseling, mentoring, and family planning, but that 
mothers similarly situated will not be left out.

                              {time}  1100

  I think it is vital to understand that we do have a responsibility to 
liberalize or loosen the regulations to ensure that we put our money 
where our mouth is. For a very long time Members of this body have 
argued about the devastation of families who have been divided, of 
fathers who are incarcerated, or fathers who are unable to take on 
their responsibility as a parent. We have cited the devastation that 
comes sometimes from a single parent who may happen to be a mother.
  In this instance, this legislation responds to that concern, and as 
it responds to that concern it promotes family, it promotes the unity 
of family, and it enhances fathers who may not have had the right kind 
of training to be a father. How tragic it is in all of our communities 
to come upon households who are absolutely trying, Mr. Speaker, but 
they do not have the support system.
  I am likewise appreciative that we will have an opportunity to debate 
the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), because all of 
us believe that there should be the spiritual aspect in our families' 
lives, but we do want to ensure that there is no proselytizing, there 
is no promoting of religion in the course of trying to help these 
single parents, mothers and fathers.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, I support the legislation, and I 
would hope many of these amendments will pass as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because I 
believe it should be an open rule. It fails to make in order an 
important amendment that I offered, which was supported by the 
Democrats on the Committee on Rules and all of the Democrats on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  My amendment increases the time that a person is allowed to receive 
vocational education or job training while participating in a welfare-
to-work program from 6 months to 12 months. Six months of vocational 
education or job training is just not enough to prepare an individual 
for a job that will pay wages leading to self-sufficiency.
  I know that 6 months is not enough because studies that compare 
women's education to their earnings prove it. I know that 6 months is 
not enough because I have testimonials from training programs 
nationwide, the people in the field who work with welfare recipients 
day in and day out, and they all agree that more education is needed to 
make families self-sufficient. And I know that 6 months is not enough 
because there was a time when I was a young mother raising three small 
children without any help from their father. Even though I worked full 
time, I depended on welfare to supplement my paycheck to give my 
children the food, the child care, and the health care that they 
needed.
  Eventually, I was able to leave welfare and never go back. I was able 
to leave welfare because I was healthy, I was assertive, and I was 
educated and had good job skills. That education was my ticket off of 
welfare into a better job, into better pay, and into benefits that my 
family needed. It gave me the means to support myself and my family 
and, believe me, it cannot be done without education or training.
  My amendment would have given other families the same fair chance I 
had to move from welfare to work, a chance to earn a livable wage. 
Remember, my colleagues, we should not be giving opportunity only to 
those who have opportunity to begin with.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule until all individuals are 
given the opportunity to earn a livable wage.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio for bringing forward this rule that I 
support.
  In response to the comments of the gentlewoman from California about 
job training, I agree with her. I am sorry that was not made in order. 
But without this rule, without bringing this bill forward, we are going 
to be with current law that does not allow any opportunity for 
independent job training. The bill provides for a new 6-month period, 
and I would hope that we would have her support so we could move this 
important bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to compliment the Committee on Rules for 
allowing us to debate this issue fully today. I want to thank my 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for the bipartisan way in which the 
Fathers Count Act of 1999 has been brought forward.
  And let me just also, if I might, read from the statement of the 
administration's policy that we received today: ``The administration 
supports House passage of H.R. 3073. The President is deeply committed 
to helping parents of low-income children work and honor their 
responsibilities to support their children. H.R. 3073 is an important 
step in this direction.''
  And we received last week a letter from the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the 
Children's Defense Fund, writing in support of H.R. 3073, the Fathers 
Count Act of 1999. The letter goes on to point out how important this 
is to help low-income custodial and noncustodial parents facilitate the 
payment of child support; and it assists parents in meeting their 
parental responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I would encourage my colleagues 
to support the rule and to support the legislation.

[[Page 29501]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and as the father of two small boys, I would hardly stand in 
the well of this House and oppose the concept of encouraging fathers to 
be part of their family and to take responsibility for their children. 
But I rise today because I want to bring to Members' attention what I 
think are two fundamental flaws in this bill unless we pass the Edwards 
amendment in debate today.
  The first is, without my amendment, this bill would allow direct 
Federal tax dollars to go directly into churches, synagogues, and 
houses of worship. Clearly, in my opinion, and more importantly the 
opinion of Justice Rehnquist in the 1988 decision, something that is 
unconstitutional.
  Secondly, without the Edwards amendment, under this measure, because 
it adopts language that was originally put into the welfare reform bill 
that not a handful of Members of this House were aware of when that 
bill passed, and listen to me, Members, on this, this bill, without my 
amendment, would allow a church to take Federal tax dollars and put up 
a sign saying, if you are not of a particular religion, we will not 
hire you because of your religious faith. Signs in one church using 
Federal dollars may say, no Jews need apply here, and another church 
say, no Christians or no Protestants need apply here. I find that 
offensive and I would hope every Member of this House would join me in 
support of changing that fatal flaw in this legislation.
  Since the Committee on Rules was gracious enough to give me my 
amendment, I will have a chance to debate it further. Unfortunately, I 
will only have 10 minutes to debate the issue of separation of church 
and State that our Founding Fathers spent 10 years debating. So let me 
discuss my amendment now.
  My amendment is straightforward and direct. It says that Federal 
funding of this bill can go to faith-based organizations but not 
directly to churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. My amendment 
will be a short amendment and it will be a short debate. But, Members, 
the principle of opposing direct Federal funding of churches, 
synagogues, and houses of worship is as timeless and as profound as the 
first 10 words of our Bill of Rights. Those words are these: ``Congress 
shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.''
  Those words have protected for over 200 years American religion from 
government intervention and regulation. In a 20-minute debate today on 
this floor when our attention is focused on appropriations bills, let 
us not carelessly throw away the religious freedom and tolerance our 
Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in the establishment clause and 
the first words of the first amendment of our Bill of Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong, given some basic 
safeguards, with faith-based organizations, such as the Salvation Army 
or Catholic Charities receiving Federal money to run social programs. 
However, if my colleagues would listen to the words of Madison and 
Jefferson, there is something terribly wrong about Federal tax dollars 
going directly to churches, synagogues, and houses of worship.
  Our Founding Fathers, as I stated, debated at length the question of 
government-funding of churches. They not only said no, they felt so 
strongly about their answer that they dedicated the first words of the 
Bill of Rights to the proposition that government should stay out of 
religion and should not directly fund religion and houses of worship.
  Our Founding Fathers did not build the establishment clause in the 
Bill of Rights out of disrespect for religion, they did it out of total 
reverence for religion. Why? Because our Founding Fathers understood 
the clear lesson of all of human history, that the best way to ruin 
religion is to politicize it. The best way to limit religious freedom 
is to let government regulate religion. Millions of foreign citizens 
have emigrated to America and even put their lives on the line to do so 
precisely because of the religious freedom we have here guaranteed 
under the establishment clause.
  Why in the world would we in this Congress want to tear down a 
principle today that our Founding Fathers so extraordinarily fought for 
and that has worked, a principle that has worked so well for over 2 
centuries? Why in the world would this Congress today want to emulate 
the failed policies of other nations who have direct Federal 
involvement in funding of their churches and of their religions and, as 
a consequence, have had religious fights, discord and, yes, even wars?
  What is wrong with direct Federal funding of churches and synagogues 
and houses of worship? With less eloquence than Jefferson and Madison, 
let me mention four serious specific problems.
  First, it is clearly unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote 
in 1988, in the case of Bowen vs Kendrick, ``There is a risk that 
direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific 
secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian 
institution's religious mission.''
  The second problem. This bill, if not amended, as I have said, would 
allow Federal dollars to be used, and listen to me, my colleagues, 
would allow Federal dollars to be used to discriminate against citizens 
in job hiring and firing based specifically and only on their religious 
faith. I find that repugnant.
  One church, as I said, could put up a sign saying, Jews may not apply 
for jobs for this federally funded position. Another community, perhaps 
a church, that says, Protestants may not apply, or Catholics may not 
apply, Hindus may not apply, using Federal dollars. And that is wrong, 
my colleagues; and we ought to change it with the Edwards amendment.
  The idea of government-funded religious discrimination, I hope, would 
find great offense in this House today. It is anathema to the most 
fundamental rights embedded in the very core of our constitution.
  The third problem with this bill and its direct Federal funding of 
our churches, synagogues, and houses of worship should be obvious to 
all of us, but especially to my conservative Republican friends, direct 
Federal funding will lead to massive Federal regulations of our 
religious institutions. Does anybody question that?
  If we dislike Federal agencies regulating our businesses and our 
schools, why in the world would we, through this and the welfare reform 
legislation language that it adopts, why would we want to invite the 
Federal Government to regulate our churches and our religious 
institutions on a daily basis?
  The fourth problem with this bill, without my amendment, is that it 
will pit churches and synagogues against each other in the pursuit of 
millions and ultimately billions of Federal dollars. Just look at the 
dissension that it has caused this Congress, professional politicians 
fighting over the annual appropriation bill. Think what is going to 
happen when we have Baptists and Methodists and Jews and Muslims and 
Hindus and all of 2,000 religious sects in America all competing for 
the almighty Federal dollar?
  This bill has many good provisions in it that I could support, but it 
has these two fatal flaws. I urge, on a bipartisan basis, my colleagues 
to vote for the Edwards amendment, allow funding of faith-based 
organizations with safeguards, but prohibit direct funding of churches, 
synagogues, and houses of worship. And let us say clearly today on the 
floor of this House with our vote on my amendment that we do not 
support using Federal dollars to discriminate against American citizens 
based solely on their religious beliefs.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I want to finally thank the Democratic sponsor of 
this bill, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for his strong 
support of the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, following is the case summary I referred to previously:

  Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) (Justice Rehnquist Wrote the 
Majority Opinion in Which Justices White, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy 
                                Joined)

       Facts: Challenge to federal grant program that provides 
     funding for services relating to

[[Page 29502]]

     adolescent sexuality and pregnancy. Plaintiffs claimed that 
     the federal program, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), 
     was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
       Ruling: The Court held that the statute was not 
     unconstitutional on its face. It also ruled, however, that a 
     determination of whether any of the grants made pursuant to 
     the statute violate the Establishment Clause required further 
     proceedings in the district court. ``In particular, it will 
     be open to [plaintiffs] on remand to show that AFLA aid is 
     flowing to grantees that can be considered `pervasively 
     sectarian' religious institutions . . .''
       Reasoning: Although the Court did not believe that the 
     possibility that AFLA grants may go to religious institutions 
     that could be considered `pervasively sectarian' was 
     sufficient to conclude that no grants whatsoever could be 
     given under the statute to religious organizations, it left 
     the district court free to consider whether certain grants 
     were going to such groups and thereby improperly advancing 
     religion. By contrast, Court made clear that religiously 
     affiliates could receive tax funds for secular purposes.
       ``Of course, even when the challenged statute appears to be 
     neutral on its face, we have always been careful to ensure 
     that direct government aid to religiously affiliated 
     institutions does not have the primary effect of advancing 
     religion. One way in which direct government aid might have 
     that effect is if the aid flows to institutions that are 
     `pervasively sectarian.' We stated in Hunt v. McNair, 413 
     U.S. 734 (1973) that: ``[a]id normally may be thought to have 
     a primary effect of advancing religion when it flows to an 
     institution in which religion is so pervasive that a 
     substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the 
     religious mission.''
       The reason for this is that there is a risk that direct 
     government funding, even if it is designated for specific 
     secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively 
     sectarian institution's `religious mission.' ''
       Court also noted difference between pervasively sectarian 
     and religiously affiliated entities when it stated that grant 
     monitoring expected under statute did not amount to excessive 
     entanglement, ``at least in the context of a statute 
     authorizing grants to religiously affiliated organizations 
     that are not necessarily `pervasively sectarian.' ''
       Note on Justices Kennedy and Scalia's separate concurrence: 
     Justice Kennedy wrote separate concurrence, in which Justice 
     Scalia joined, to emphasize that they did not believe the 
     district court should focus on whether the recipient 
     organizations were pervasively sectarian, but instead on the 
     way in which the organization spent its grant. ``[T]he only 
     purpose of further inquiring whether any particular grantee 
     institution is pervasively sectarian is as a preliminary step 
     to demonstrating that the funds are in fact being used to 
     further religion.''

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule as 
well as H.R. 3073, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999.''
  This is pretty important legislation, fundamentally important 
legislation. We were successful in doing something 3 years ago in 1997 
we were told we could not do when I came to Congress in 1994; and that 
is, we reformed our welfare system, a system that was failing so bad 
that more children were in poverty in 1993 and in 1994 than ever before 
in history.
  One of the reasons that so many children were in poverty was because 
their fathers were not involved in the families. And when the father 
was not involved, the family's income was a lot less and the 
struggling, working mom trying to make ends meet and raise children was 
having a hard time.
  We passed into law in 1997 the first major welfare reform in over a 
generation that emphasized work and family and responsibility. Clearly 
it is one of the great successes of this Congress, because we have seen 
a drop in the welfare rolls in my home State of Illinois of over 50 
percent, meaning more families are now paying taxes and in the work 
rolls and successfully participating in society.
  Well, this legislation, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999,'' is the 
next logical step. Let us remember, the old welfare was biased against 
dad. The old welfare system discouraged dad from being involved in the 
family. In fact, it rewarded the family if dad stayed away. We have 
changed that successfully over the last several years.
  This legislation is the next step. What is great about this 
legislation is that it reinforces marriage, the most important basic 
institution of our society, and it promotes better parenting, 
encourages and rewards the payment of child support.
  More children are in poverty today in Illinois because of the lack of 
the payment of child support, and we want to turn that around. But, 
also, this increases the father's income and encourages and rewards 
fathers for being involved in family. It is good legislation.
  I just listened to the argument of my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), who believes that we should deny faith-based 
organizations the opportunity to be part of this program.
  I think of Restoration Ministries in Harvey, Illinois, a program that 
successfully has worked over the last decade to identify men in the 
community, particularly in urban communities in the Southside of 
Chicago, and help give them the opportunity to participate in society. 
It has been a successful program. I think Restoration Ministries is one 
of those programs which works that we should enlist in our effort to 
involve fathers in this program.
  The fact that 75 percent of the funds, under this program, will go to 
faith-based organizations, whether they are Jewish or Muslim or 
Christian or other faiths, is a right step because they care and they 
want to be involved.
  Organizations like Restoration Ministries are successful because the 
people that are involved believe in their programs, they want to help 
people, they are part of the community. Let us enlist them.
  I would also point out that this idea has bipartisan support. Not 
only do we have the leading Presidential candidate on the Republican 
side saying they support this, but the leading candidate on the 
Democratic side supporting this, as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because the Committee on Rules ruled 
out of order an amendment that I offered which would ensure that the 
Civil Rights Act and civil rights laws would apply to the use of these 
Federal funds.
  The Edwards amendment would address many concerns. This amendment 
would address one specific concern, and that is that the bill provides 
an exception to civil rights laws and specifically allows religious 
organizations to discriminate on hiring with Federal funds.
  Now, many religious groups now sponsor Federal programs: Catholic 
Charities, Lutheran Services. But they cannot discriminate in hiring 
people with those Federal funds.
  This bill changes that and says that a program funded under this 
bill, the sponsor can say that people of the Jewish faith need not 
apply for jobs funded by the Federal Government or Catholics only will 
be hired by the Federal funds. That is wrong.
  The amendment should have been allowed, and it was not. Therefore, I 
oppose the rule.
  Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, one of the more devastating amendments today 
that we will be debating is the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) that would strip out the opportunity to have 
religious and faith-based organizations participate in the fatherhood 
initiative and the fathers count program and the other initiatives that 
we have in front of us today.
  We in the House have now passed this three times, in the Human 
Services bill, in the Welfare Reform bill, and in the Justice 
Department bills. It would seem only appropriate in this very critical 
area that we would allow the faith-based organizations to become 
involved.
  We can get into all kind of legal technicalities here about whether 
we should have types of separate organizations and how it should be 
structured. But the plain fact of the matter is that at the grass roots 
level, in urban America and African American and Hispanic communities, 
the organizations that are by far the most effective are faith-based.
  They do not run around looking for attorneys as to how to set it up. 
They

[[Page 29503]]

are actually trying to help kids in the street. They are trying to help 
get families reunited like Charles Ballard has in Cleveland. He did not 
ask about the structure. He went out and tried to go door to door with 
thousands of families over 15 years to get dads reunited with their 
families.
  Eugene Rivers, in Boston, has put together a coalition in the streets 
of Boston, who, with all the other Government programs that have been 
wasting, in my opinion, for the large part millions of dollars, he and 
the other pastors and young people working with the churches of Boston 
have accomplished more to reduce youth violence than all the rhetoric 
about all the other programs in Boston.
  But they do not even have health insurance for their employees, the 
volunteers in the streets and the people that are working for their 
churches there. They do not have adequate money with which to get 
people out doing the things that are working. Instead, we put it into a 
lot of the traditional programs because we are worried that somebody 
might actually say that character matters.
  What Vice President Gore has said, which the Republican Party and our 
logical leading contender at this point, Governor Bush, has said, and 
as well as this House three times, is that faith-based organizations 
need to be included when we look at how to address these social 
problems.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first point out two 
inaccurate and I assume unintentional statements made by my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle. Two of their speakers have 
misrepresented my amendment, saying that it would deny funding to all 
faith-based organizations.
  Let me be clear what my amendment does or does not do so Members can 
know the facts and make their own decision on that amendment.
  My amendment says that the Federal funds under this bill may go to 
faith-based organizations. And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of 
faith-based organizations out there. Catholic Charities, Lutheran 
Services of America, Jewish Federation, Salvation Army, Volunteers of 
America, Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Even 501(c)(3) organizations 
associated directly with the church would not be prohibited from 
receiving money under my amendment.
  What my amendment simply does is deal with, as the previous speaker 
said, the legal technicality. I do want to point out, when we talk 
about legal technicality, we are talking about the first 10 words of 
the First Amendment of our Constitution, the first words that our 
Founding Fathers chose to put in the Bill of Rights, which said, 
``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.''
  The legal technicality that the gentleman kind of demeans in his 
comments refers also to Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority statement in 
writing the opinion in the 1988 case of Bowen v. Kendrick that direct 
Federal funding to pervasively sectarian organizations is 
unconstitutional.
  So perhaps if they want to take the position that the Bill of Rights 
is the legal technicality, that the First Amendment of the Constitution 
is a legal technicality, and that Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme 
Court are simply a legal technicality, then perhaps they should go 
ahead and vote against the Edwards amendment.
  But if they take seriously and deeply the commitment of our Nation 
for two centuries not to the have direct Federal funding of churches 
and houses of worship, I would suggest that they should vote for the 
Edwards amendment and, recognizing the fact of the actual language, 
that it will continue to allow Federal dollars to go to faith-based 
organizations.
  I hope the gentleman might have a chance to review my amendment again 
so that he would make it clear that we do hot prohibit money from going 
to faith-based organizations. We do try to be constitutional and help 
this bill in its constitutionality in prohibiting money from going 
directly to churches.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to 
explain why the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, and Judge 
Rehnquist's decision in 1988 in the Supreme Court case are merely legal 
technicalities.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is a nice try to wrap himself in the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, the legal technicality that I was talking about is, in 
fact, what we have debated many times in this House floor related to 
fungibility of money, that, as I understand the amendment of the 
gentleman, he is saying that if a church has an entity that would work 
with this and, for example, in this case a fatherhood initiative had a 
separate entity but was not part of the church, the money could go to 
the entity but not the church, which then brings the States in to 
audits of the church as to how they move their funds around, that in 
fact some organizations such as Catholic Charities have done that for 
years and have been eligible.
  What we have done in our past bills is said that if the money goes to 
the church itself, they still have to make a proposal to whatever 
government entity, say it is on juvenile crime, as we did in the 
Justice bill or others, and they have to make that and the government 
then audits that. But sometimes it does not work in the inner city and 
other places to have this money, just have this paper trail.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me point out that I 
would make the same argument the gentleman made as an argument to 
support the Edwards amendment and I appreciate his bringing it up.
  Under their bill, when money goes directly to the church, the Federal 
Government, to provide accountability to the taxpayers, is going to 
have to audit every dime raised and spent by that church.
  If we pass my amendment, the money goes to a separate organization 
affiliated with the church or religion. And, therefore, because it is 
separate, they do not give the Government the carte blanche to walk 
into every church and synagogue in America and audit their revenues and 
their expenditures.
  I think, without this amendment, this bill, whether intended or not, 
is going to invite massive involvement of Federal regulation into our 
houses of worship.
  And finally the point I would make, the gentleman has referenced 
these debates we have had on the floor of the House about so-called 
charitable choice. Let me point out to him, I think he may recall the 
last two times we have had that debate, one was at 12:30 in the morning 
that lasted for 10 minutes and the other one was at 1:00 in the morning 
that lasted for 10 minutes.
  I would be willing to wager with the gentleman that there were not 15 
Members out of 435 of this House that knew that the Welfare Reform bill 
of 1996 opened the door to possible unconstitutional direct funding of 
our churches.
  So the fact that we did something that the courts are now looking at, 
and I think will declare as unconstitutional, in 1996 is hardly a 
rationale to say, based on those 1:00 a.m. debates with 5 minutes on 
the floor of the House, we ought to extend this unconstitutional direct 
funding of our religious houses of worship and just one more step with 
just, gosh, this is just another $150 million.
  This is an issue our Founding Fathers debated at length, and it was 
so fundamental to them that they said neither convenience nor even good 
intentions should be a reason for breaking down the wall of separation 
between church and State. This is a fundamental principle.
  I wish we could debate this issue all day. It deserves such a debate. 
But I would just argue with my colleagues, if they want to support this 
bill, if they actually want it to become law, they should support the 
Edwards amendment, because based on the clear decision of the Supreme 
Court in 1988 in Judge Rehnquist's decision, this bill will not be 
constitutional unless we pass the Edwards amendment.
  The final thing I would point out, in response to what the gentleman 
was saying, is that if we separate out the

[[Page 29504]]

funding and have it go to religiously affiliated organizations, they do 
not have the protection under the Supreme Court decisions to 
discriminate based on religious faith.
  So, without my amendment, what they are really doing is breaking new 
ground. I would like to ask the gentleman to respond, how can he defend 
the concept of taking his and my Federal dollars and our constituents' 
Federal dollars and hanging up a sign saying a Jew, a Christian, a 
Protestant, a Hindu or a Muslim should not apply for this Federally 
funded job because they do not participate in the right religion? How 
can the gentleman defend that principle?

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SOUDER. As the gentleman presumably knows, you cannot do that if 
you receive Federal funds. What you are allowed to do under this is in 
your staffing, if you are a religious organization, you can 
discriminate because part of your faith-based organization is that. You 
also have alternative programs in any of these, and if there are not 
alternatives for individuals to the faith-based organizations, there 
are protections. That has been in all of our different bills. That has 
been the standard interpretation.
  Remember, the final decision as far as who gets the grant money lies 
with the Federal agency, not with the church. This is not like a block 
grant or something we are driving straight to the churches. What you 
are saying is you do not trust HHS under a Democratic administration to 
protect these rights.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Frankly, our Founding Fathers did not trust government 
to regulate churches and houses of worship. I think they had it 
absolutely right in the Bill of Rights. The gentleman has made my 
point. He needs to go back and look at the language in the actual 
Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that nobody knew about and this adopted that 
says, yes, there is an exemption that applies to that, and now to this 
bill if we pass it, that says, yes, you can hang out a sign saying, do 
not apply for this federally funded job if you are not of the right 
religious faith.
  That is obnoxious to me, that is repugnant to me, and I think that is 
why this should be a bipartisan amendment. I would urge my Republican 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SOUDER. The gentleman just shifted his argument. He just said you 
could not apply for a job. Earlier he told me you could not apply to 
the agency to be served. I want to point out to the listeners, he just 
switched his argument in the middle of his debate.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I did not shift my argument. I will be happy to give the 
gentleman the printed statement that I read from a few minutes ago. 
What it says is this bill without the Edwards amendment will let you 
take Federal dollars and discriminate against someone in the hiring of 
a person based on his or her religion.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this portion of the 
preliminary debate with a couple of comments. First off, it is patently 
ridiculous to suggest that after a year and a half of the welfare 
reform debate, after multiple versions of that bill here that Members 
of Congress did not understand what they were voting for in the welfare 
reform debate. Furthermore, while we unfortunately did deal with the 
charitable choice at several times in the evening during the debate, I 
would argue that Members of Congress fully understood, or at least most 
Members of Congress, at least on our side, understood what they were 
debating in the charitable choice as did those who were generally 
supportive of this legislation. I find it a little disconcerting for my 
colleague to suggest that Members of Congress did not know what they 
were voting on three different times.
  Furthermore, I believe that this is such a fundamental principle, and 
we will debate this further, I am sure. I am not referring to illegal 
mingling of church and State. What we are talking about here is that 
whether it is an individual church or a church entity, being able to 
come and say, we want to work with juvenile delinquents, in this case 
with father questions, in other cases with homeless questions, we have 
to meet these criteria of serving this population. But in doing that, 
because we have seen that character matters, that, in fact, you do not 
have to, if you are a Catholic priest, take your collar off, you do not 
have to strip the crucifixes off your room. That part and parcel of the 
effect of faith-based organizations is their faith and character.
  Lastly, as far as this question of bringing the State into the 
church, the fact is that if it is a church-based entity or a church, if 
you say it can only come from an entity, you bring the government by 
default into the church. If you say that it can be either, you only 
bring the government in if there is a question about the grant. Under 
either way we do this, under the Edwards amendment or the existing, if 
there is a question about the grant, of course the government comes in. 
It would be illegal use of funds.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 278, 
nays 144, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 582]

                               YEAS--278

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo

[[Page 29505]]


     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--144

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boehlert
     Deal
     Gutknecht
     Hill (IN)
     LaTourette
     Matsui
     Murtha
     Scarborough
     Smith (TX)
     Tierney
     Towns

                              {time}  1154

  Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________